God Doesn't Have Any Grandchildren

There is a story that has been going around for years, now, about a woman who always cut both ends of the roast off before she cooked it. Her husband asked her why she did it, because he had never seen his mother do that, and it seemed like a real waste of good beef. She replied that her mother had always done it that way. The two of them considered that for a while, and called her mother to ask why she cut the ends off of the roast. Well, because her mother always did it. So they called grandmother: “Why do we cut the ends off of the roast before roasting it?” “Well, I don’t know why you do it, I always did it because the only pan I had was too small for a whole roast.”
I heard a preacher on the radio some time ago saying that God doesn’t have any grandchildren. That puzzled me at first, but he went on to explain: If one’s parents have made a profession of faith, and accepted Jesus as their personal savior, been baptized, done all of the things that are expected of them as Christians, that is only enough for their own salvation. Hopefully, in the process of raising their children, they will instill in them at least a respect for God’s Word, and desire to live right. At least in some instances, the children see the commitment that the parents have towards God, and want no part of it. Some people seem to think that because their parents have a relationship with God, then they are okay with God, too. It can get interesting, but Jesus saves by the each. He doesn’t save whole families; each member of the family must come to God on their own. Your parents may be children of God, but that doesn’t make you His grandchild; you either become a child of God of your own volition, or you are none of His.
I have seen a lot of people lately that attend church where they don’t agree with the doctrine that is being taught. That puzzles me. There are all kinds of churches in this country, why would you attend where you don’t have agreement? I realize that, in some cases, they are attending church where they were raised. In some cases, they were taught growing up that God would only take them to Heaven if they were members of that particular church. Let me ask you a question: If you don’t believe what the church believes, are you really a member of that church, anyway? My suggestion would be to sit down with your pastor, and discuss your differences. Perhaps he can help you understand why the church believes what it believes, and help you to believe it also. If not, then maybe you should find another church. As I said earlier, there are all kinds of churches. Spend some time in prayer; ask God to show you where He would have you to attend church, but be prepared to accept His guidance. If He guides you right back to the church that you’ve been attending, then maybe you need to correct your own beliefs, but God can help you with that, too.

Being Judgmental

Simon Cowell, on American Idol, has taken a lot of flack, due to the fact that he is generally somewhat harsh with the contestants. Quite frankly, that’s his job; that’s what they pay him to do. Some of the contestants actually seem to take what he says pretty hard, and yet, they keep showing up. Does anybody get on the show without watching it first? And, realistically, even if the contestant really is very, very good, should they expect everyone to like them? Should they expect to never be criticized? Even the very best singers have gotten criticized…
There is something to be said about not being judgmental. Jesus said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1) Of course, one can hardly blame Simon, as I said, he’s doing his job. No one should go on American Idol and expect to not get skewered by Simon. Likewise, in everyday life, there will be some that agree with us, and some that disagree. We shouldn’t let that interfere with doing what God has laid on our hearts. We shouldn’t entirely ignore criticism, either, because sometimes even harsh, really wrong criticism can help us to get better at whatever it is that we are doing. Sometimes we get take it very personally when someone criticizes something that we are doing. If what we are doing is for God, then we shouldn’t take it personally. Samuel took it somewhat personally when Israel demanded a king; God had to remind him that they were rejecting God, Himself, not Samuel (1 Samuel 8:6-7).
At the same time, one must be careful: Just because I know that I’m doing a work for God, and all the wrong people are criticizing me for doing what I’m doing, it doesn’t necessarily follow that what I’m doing is what God wants me to do. There was a time, in the Old Testament, that King Saul declared a fast because the army of the Philistines was upon Israel, and it didn’t look good. Saul’s son, Jonathan, didn’t get the word of the fast, he took an armorbearer and went out to scout the Philistine camp. They got close to the camp, and Jonathan fleeced the Lord, asking for a sign. The sign that he got, indicated that he and his armorbearer should attack, so they did. That must have taken a lot of faith. As you might guess, Israel won the battle, thanks to Jonathan. On the way back, though, Jonathan saw some honey dripping from a tree, and he tasted some of it. Seems only right, doesn’t it? He saved Israel, isn’t he entitled to a little honey—especially since he didn’t know that the king had declared a fast—but the people around him told him about the fast, and he basically went off on his father (not considering that maybe it was because the people were fasting that God delivered the army into Jonathan’s hand—or maybe not, perhaps what Jonathan said was essentially correct, that if the King hadn’t declared a fast, the victory might have been much greater, but he shouldn’t have criticized the king in the ears of the people like that). It ended up, that the Lord revealed that there was sin in the camp, lots were cast, and Jonathan was found to be the sinner. Even then, Jonathan thought that his sin was tasting the honey. Tasting the honey wasn’t sin, he did not know about the fast! But when he found out about the fast, instead of taking the humble side, and explaining that he didn’t know, he justified himself and tried to blame the King. Isn’t it amazing how quickly one can go from being absolutely right to being completely wrong? The Bible says to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith. Because just because you were yesterday, doesn’t necessarily mean that you are today.

A Few Thoughts on Marriage

Just a few thoughts on the subject of marriage:
Eve was created specifically to be Adam’s wife. Of course, Adam didn’t have a lot of choice in the matter (I’m sure you’ve heard the joke where God told Adam He would create for Adam the perfect wife, but it would cost him an arm and a leg. “Gee, that’s pretty steep, God, what can I get for a rib?”), but she was the right woman for him. Cain had a wife (Where did she come from? The Bible doesn’t really say). A wife. Abraham had a wife, but then, after the promise was given, Sarah had a hard time believing that she could have a child, so she turned over her handmaid, Hagar, to Abraham (apparently Abraham had a hard time believing it, too). God later made it clear that this was not what he had intended, but, for whatever reason, very little in the way of punishment was meted out to Abraham for his lack of faith, although he had to deal with the consequences. Isaac had his Rebekah, and there is no mention of any other woman in his life.
Jacob (also known as Israel) ended up with two wives and then two more wives (Genesis 30:4-9), but not really by his own choice. The love of his life was Rachel, but Rachel’s father, Laban, tricked Jacob. When Jacob first asked about marrying Rachel, Laban agreed that if Jacob worked for Laban for seven years, then the marriage could take place. Perhaps Laban thought he could marry off his older daughter, Leah, within seven years. It didn’t happen. Custom dictated that Laban marry off his daughters in order (at least, that was the reason he gave Jacob as to why he switched daughters on Jacob). So Jacob goes through the wedding, thinking that he’s marrying Rachel, and wakes up the next morning, only to find that he is married to Leah (I’m thinking that there was probably an inordinate amount of alcohol consumed before the wedding. I wonder how that made Leah feel, that her father felt like he had to get her sister’s suitor liquored up in order to get Leah married off?). A lot of men would have simply kicked Leah to the curb, “I didn’t work seven years for YOU!” and demanded satisfaction from Laban. Jacob, however, knew that Leah was no longer a good candidate for marriage, and that it was because of him (granted, because of something that he was tricked into doing, but something that he did, nevertheless). Jacob, apparently, also understood that Laban did what he felt he had to do (can’t let Rachel marry until Leah is married, but Leah doesn’t have a suitor, and Rachel has been promised). Later on, as the two sisters competed with each other, they brought their handmaids into service. It seems to me that Jacob would have been happy with just Rachel, and yet, he allowed himself to be (what’s the plural of henpecked?). Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not suggesting that Jacob’s problems were all because of Leah and Rachel; I’m not even suggesting that those problems were all because of Laban; a lot of his problems were simply because he was such a nice guy, and he tried to make everybody happy. This probably should have served as an example to his descendents as to what NOT to do, but a lot of them seemed to think that it was okay to have multiple wives and concubines as long as they weren’t nice about it…
King David had many wives, and a few concubines, and it wasn’t so much them that got him into trouble (although Michal was troublesome at times) as the fact that, for him, they weren’t enough. Solomon had an incredible number of wives and concubines, and they definitely got him into trouble, but, again, not so much because they were evil, or wicked, but because he allowed himself to get spread so thin trying to see to their needs that he stopped attending to God.
Of course, Jesus said that when a man marries a woman, they two become one flesh. Paul also told us that a bishop or a deacon should be the husband of one wife—and I think it’s fair to assume that he was not commanding marriage, he was specifying quantity… It also occurs to me that, even though he specified bishop or deacon, that doesn’t necessarily exclude the rest of us from that, because sometimes callings change (just because I’m not filling the position of a deacon now, it doesn’t mean that I won’t get called into that position later).

Who Exactly Was Mary Magdalene?

Who exactly was Mary Magdalene? If you came here looking for an answer to that question, you’re probably going to be disappointed, because I’m not sure that I have one. The Bible really leaves her as pretty much a mystery. There is at least information about her in the Wikipedia article as what I can provide. Pope Gregory I decided many years ago, that she was the adulterous woman that washed Jesus’ feet in Simon’s house. Quite frankly, that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. All four Gospels mention Mary Magdalene by name, none of them indicate that she was ever adulterous; Mark and Luke both say that she had been possessed by seven demons (Mark 16:9, Luke 8:2). Interestingly enough, Luke is the only Gospel that mentions her prior to the crucifixion, and that only in passing (Luke 8:2, referenced above).
Many people over the years have tried to romantically link the Magdalene with Jesus. Of course, the Bible never specifically says that they were not, however, there is no indication that they were, either. We really don’t even know if she was about the same age as Jesus, or that she was single. We generally assume that she was, because she traveled with Jesus, but realistically, in an age of arranged marriages, young single women didn’t usually go traveling around with a group of people that they weren’t related to. It’s possible that her family disowned her and put her out because they didn’t know how to deal with the demons, so after Jesus cast them out, she felt more kinship with Him than with her natural family, and so traveled with Him. It’s possible that she was the sister of one of the Apostles, although I think that would have found it’s way into the narrative if it were the case. It’s also possible that she was a widowed woman with no children to stay with, so she traveled with Jesus; perhaps she had children, but her children were traveling with Jesus… Who knows, she might have been the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20-28), but I doubt it—I think Matthew would have told us that…
In Biblical times, women tended to be treated as second-class citizens. If Mary Magdalene had not been the first one to see Jesus after the resurrection, it’s entirely possible that she would have been left out of the narrative altogether. I think it’s significant that Jesus chose to appear to her, first; He could have appeared to any of the eleven (or all eleven, simultaneously), but He chose her. It’s also interesting that when she tried to tell the eleven what she had seen, for the most part, they didn’t believe her. Granted, as much as they would have liked to have believed her, it must have seemed utterly fantastic, but, at the same time, they must have known her, and known what kind of person she was. If she had been a man, she might have had more credibility with them, but, then again, a couple of verses later, Jesus appeared to “two others” (two men or two women? it doesn’t say), and the rest of the disciples didn’t believe them at first, either.
Some have theorized that there was a conspiracy in the church to keep her out of the Bible, rather than to admit that a woman had such an important role in the Gospel story; if that’s the case, they weren’t very good at conspiracy—as I said earlier, her role is mentioned in all four gospels (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20). Personally, I think that it’s unfortunate the Bible tells us so little about her. She clearly had an important role, but by leaving out the details of her life, she is left open to interpretation. Essentially, we have this important figure in the gospels that is left as a blank canvas: anyone can depict Mary Magdalene as pretty much anything without fear of contradiction, because so little information is given to us about her.
One thing we know about her, though: she was a remarkable woman. There can be no doubt that the Bible wouldn’t talk about her the way it does (even though it doesn’t say very much) if she were not.

Cinderella

I guess by now, all of us have heard about the death of Maria Sue Chapman, the youngest daughter of Steven Curtis Chapman. She was five. From what I understand, she was playing in the driveway, and her brother pulled into the driveway and didn’t see her in time. Steven has asked for prayer for the family, but particularly for his son that was at the wheel. That must be a massive amount of guilt to carry around. There has been no release as to which of Steven’s two sons was driving (Will Franklin or Caleb). It was an accident, so the name of the driver is not really news, and really not any of our business.
Steven Curtis Chapman had four daughters: Emily, Shaoey, Stevey Joy, and Maria. He had recently written a book entitled, "Cinderella: The Love of Daddy and his Princess." I haven’t read the book, but I would imagine that a man with four daughters has encountered pretty much everything imaginable that could happen between a father and a daughter (maybe even some things that are beyond imaginable). I know that he has done a song recently called, ‘Cinderella’ which is about the different stages of a daughter’s life, told from the father’s perspective, from pre-schooler to fiancée (his oldest daughter, Emily, has just recently gotten engaged). In the chorus of that song, he talks about wanting to spend time with his daughter, because, “I know something the Prince never knew.” And goes on to say, “All too soon, the clock will strike midnight, and she’ll be gone.” I suspect that he intended that line as a reference to his daughter Emily’s upcoming marriage. Who would have thought that his youngest daughter would go first, and in such a permanent way?

The Other Son

I think most people are familiar with the story of the prodigal son. The father in the parable has two sons: One of them asks for his inheritance early, and goes off to live on his own. After some time, and some bad decisions, he finds himself broke and hungry. Considering where he came from, he begins to realize that he would have been much better off if he had stayed with his family. He decides that his father wouldn’t be willing to treat him as a son, but perhaps there is enough love left that his father will give him a job. When he returns home, though, his father welcomes him home, and throws a celebration that his son has returned. One thing that gets overlooked in the story a lot is the other son. After the prodigal returns, the older brother, coming back to the house from working in the fields, hears the party going on, and, instead of going in and asking his father what was going on, he asks one of the hired servants. Finding out that his brother has returned, he becomes angry. He understands that his brother didn’t come home because he struck it rich and wants to share the wealth, he hit rock bottom and didn’t know where else to go. Word filtered back to the father that the other son was angry about the treatment that the prodigal was receiving, and so the father sought out the other son. “I don’t get you, dad, he has dishonored you, he has dragged our family name through the mud (or worse), he finally gets desperate enough to come home, and you throw a party! Why haven’t you ever thrown a party for me? I’m the son that has always followed your wishes!” The father reminded him that he had never asked for a party; he had never indicated any desire to celebrate with his father.
I think that there is some of each brother in most of us. Sometimes we end up doing our own thing, and end up outside of the will of God. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. When we get right, God is happy that we did. But, then, we swing the other way. We start thinking that we are doing right, and have done right, and we are in the zone; we are just so right with God. But then someone else falls into the same trap that we did, and when they get right, we wonder why God would even forgive them. On some level we know that if God didn’t forgive people, then we are all in deep trouble, but how can He forgive that?
I think that it’s interesting, too, that the other son never asked for a party. He should have at least been willing to celebrate his brother’s return. Apparently he would have been at least as happy if his brother had died in whatever far country that was that he had gone to. It seems to me that, in the natural, at least, he might have been considering the fact that, with his brother gone, he stood to inherit everything that his father had, but with his brother’s return, and the father’s obvious jubilation, suddenly his inheritance stands to be cut in half. Jesus didn’t even address that aspect of it, though, because He wasn’t talking about a natural inheritance. Our inheritance is Heaven, and Heaven will never get crowded, or spread too thin; it will be perfect. Of course, I think most of could understand the other son’s frustration at the idea that he has been doing all of this work for all of this time, and his brother ran off and did whatever he wanted, and now they both stand to gain the same inheritance. Of course, Jesus dealt with the same idea in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard in Matthew 20. What I do for my reward is between God and me, and what you do for your reward is between God and you. I don’t have any business passing judgment. The real problem IMHO, is the brother’s attitude. He’s so busy worrying about his own sense of justice, and his reward compared to his brother’s, that he completely missed his father’s justice, the true justice.

BTW—the above image is courtesy of Edith OSB on flickr.com.

Mother-in-Law

Mother-in-Law jokes have been very popular among professional comedians. To be honest, I haven’t heard too many lately, maybe it’s run its course. I make it a point not to tell mother-in-law jokes, myself (I haven’t always, I must admit, there was a time in my life, when I was young and stupid—and some would say the only change is that I’m not young anymore—when I had no real heartache about telling mother-in-law jokes, but they didn’t make sense, coming from me, because everyone who knew me then knew I wasn’t married).
Many years ago, when my first son was in diapers, his mother and I had our first real, serious fight. To be honest, I don’t remember what the fight was about. I don’t think she does, either. At some point in the argument, though, she announced that she was going home to mother. She picked up the phone, and called to tell “Mom” that she was leaving me. Part of me wanted to grab the phone away from her and tell “my side” of the story, but I realized that there was no way I could that and appear lucid (she would think I was a crazy man). So I listened. As I listened, I was a little surprised out how accurate the description of the situation was (isn’t that funny though? I can remember that her description of the situation was accurate, but I can’t remember what the situation was). After a while, I realized that she wasn’t going to lie to her mother, her mother knows her too well for that. After a few minutes, though, I heard, “But, Momma…” and, “But, Momma…” and, “But Momma…” and, finally, “Okay.” Then she hung up the phone, walked over to me, and said, “Sorry,” and went and locked herself in the bathroom. The word ‘sorry’ had the distinct tone of the apology that one really doesn’t feel they want to apologize (or should have to apologize), but Mom said to, so there it is.
I was dumbfounded. For some time, I thought that my mother-in-law had actually taken my side. Much later, I realized that it wasn’t so much that she took my side, as that she realized that we were blowing this argument way out of proportion. It wasn’t that our marriage was over; it was just that the honeymoon was over. I have never asked about her side of the conversation, but I suspect that she lectured about some of the things that she had to put up with in her own marriage (some of which were actually serious, as opposed to our little spat). It occurs to me that if more people had mothers-in-law like mine, than there might be fewer divorces. I suspect that ‘disposable marriage’ has a lot to do with the fact that, sometimes, young couples don’t have anyone to tell them that married couples are going to have disagreements—there is no ‘happily ever after’ in real life.
My heart is heavy today, because this woman, my mother-in-law, the grandmother to my children, has been diagnosed with cancer. How bad is it? We don’t know yet; she will see an oncologist Tuesday, and will take some time to sort things out after that. I have known cancer survivors, medicine has gotten much better in recent years, but, at the same time, I grew up in a time when a diagnosis of cancer was a death sentence. Intellectually, I know that is no longer the case, but, emotionally, it feels, well, it feels bad. I would ask that readers of this post pray for her. Also, I would appreciate it if you would pray for me, too, that I can be a comfort to her in this difficult time, and that I can encourage her, and not depress her (or treat her like a walking dead woman). I have a pretty good idea that talking about this illness with her is only going to make it harder on her, but ignoring the elephant in the room isn’t the right thing to do, either. Somewhere there is a happy medium, and I’m not smart enough to find that on my own, but God knows where that is, so I need to be led and directed by God.
I appreciate your prayers.

This story has been around for a while, so most of you have probably heard it, but I hope it will still give you a chuckle, nevertheless:

After creating heaven and earth, God created Adam and Eve. And the first thing he said was, "Don't.""Don't what?" Adam replied."Don't eat the forbidden fruit," God said.
“Forbidden fruit? We got forbidden fruit? Hey, Eve...we got forbidden fruit!""No way!" "Don't eat that fruit!" said God."Why?""Because I am your Father and I said so!" said God (wondering why he hadn't stopped after making the elephants). A few minutes later God saw his kids having an apple break and was angry. "Didn't I tell you not to eat the fruit?" God asked."Uh huh, " Adam replied."Then why did you?""I dunno" Eve answered."She started it!" Adam said."Did not!""Did too!""DID NOT!"Having had it with the two of them, God's punishment was that Adam and Eve should have children of their own. Thus the pattern was set and it has never changed. If God had trouble handling children, what makes you think it would be a piece of cake for you?

Interestingly enough, the book of Genesis says that bearing children was Eve’s punishment, Adam’s was having to till the ground. Still, to some extent, both punishments applied to both of them. Granted, no man yet has had to endure labor (thank God), but a father (a real father) is involved in the upbringing of his children in every other stage of the child’s life (yes, I know that there are fathers who don’t get involved in bringing up the children at all, but they are special cases. It shouldn’t be like that). There have been many farmers’ wives that have gotten out in the field and tilled the ground, and there is nothing wrong with that. Adam and Eve both messed up, it’s only fair that their descendents share the punishment.
And, to be honest, it isn’t all punishment. There is a certain satisfaction that comes from putting in a hard day’s work (although sometimes the satisfaction is considerably lessened when one works hard and ends up with little or nothing to show for it). I will grant you that delivering a baby seems to me to be one of the hardest things that any person could ever do. IMHO, I don’t think too many men (if any) are strong enough to survive that. I’m told that the only thing that allows a woman to have a second child is amnesia. Outside of that, though, there are many things about bringing up a child that bring joy to the parents. Baby’s first word, first step, first day at school (well, maybe not so much)… There are times in every parent’s life when a son or daughter will make one proud. And not just winning the big game, or delivering the commencement address—most parents never experience either one of those—but the quiet times when the child says, “I love you,” or just does the right thing without even being asked. It’s hard for me to imagine anything even coming close to the feeling that comes from having sons that have turned into fine young men.

Pre-marital Sex

I had a friend ask me an interesting question on Friday. I’m glad she asked me on Friday, it gave me the weekend to think about it. She asked me my opinion on pre-marital sex. My initial response required no thought at all: “No.” I directed her to passages in Scripture that talk about fornication. She asked me if I meant sex with a prostitute. I said fornication means sex outside of marriage. She told me she doesn’t think that’s a proper definition. Really? She explained her reasoning to me, but, basically, the term fornication comes from the Latin fornicare, which meant to have sex with a prostitute. If ‘fornication’ comes from this Latin word, then it is certainly possible that, at one time at least, fornication meant prostitution. I must admit, that’s a new one. I’ve heard lots of excuses, I mean reasons, not to believe what the Bible says, but I’ve never heard that one before. I have to consider, what did the word fornication mean in 1611? Interestingly enough, a quick trip to dictionary.com verified the current meaning, and the etymology, but also indicated that Easton’s Bible Dictionary said that, in Biblical usage, the term fornication means what the modern dictionary says, essentially, pre-marital sex. Is that right? I haven’t yet found a reason not to trust Easton’s, but, you never know. Of course, the idea that it is talking about prostitution certainly would tie in to the idea that the love of money is the root of all evil…
Let’s consider other ways in which Scripture may address the topic. Pre-marital sex would be an act of lust, rather than love, wouldn’t it? Some might argue that point, but, just for the sake, let’s look at what the Scripture says about lust: In 1 John 2:15-16, we are told to love not the world, and it goes on to warn us about the lust of the flesh. In Galatians 5:16, it tells us that the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. Further on, it even lists fornication as a work of the flesh (is that fornication as in buying a hooker?) Clearly, in our spirits, we would want to please God, but if the flesh is contrary to the spirit, then the flesh is going to get us into trouble if we let it have its way. Romans 8:1-13 talks extensively about flesh vs. spirit (particularly 8:6-9). In Matthew 5:28, Jesus expressly warns us that to look at a woman (or for a woman to look at a man—because Jesus is an equal-opportunity savior) in lust, is the same, in God’s eyes, as committing adultery. Wait, do you mean that if I look at a woman with the thought in mind that I would like to sleep with her that’s a serious sin, but if I actually sleep with her, maybe that’s okay with God (as long as I’m not giving her money)?
But, what if two people really feel strongly about each other, and want to take their relationship to a more intimate level? Then they should get married. That may sound a little melodramatic, but, honestly, if you want to take your relationship to the next level, the next level is marriage. If you respect your significant other, then show it. To everybody. Try not to treat marriage as a disposable thing, either. I know that has become common. Some people refuse to even consider marriage, because so many marriages end up in divorce. That is not how it should be, but it is a consequence of people not putting God first. But marriage is Biblical; there’s a reason why our grandparents referred to the alternative as ‘living in sin.’ Notice also that Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:37 that there are really two options: Get married, or stay a virgin.
Perhaps the best thing to do is to look at the Greek word that was translated as fornication. After all, it makes a lot less difference what the translators meant when they translated the Bible, as opposed to what the original authors meant when they wrote the Bible (or what God meant when He dictated the Bible). The Greek word is ‘porneia’ (which I’m guessing is the root word for pornography), and no, it does not mean sex with a prostitute, it means illicit sex (that is, with someone outside of marriage), or it means idolatry (in the sense that the church is the bride of Christ, and to dally with some other god or gods is ‘cheating’ on our beloved).

Jacob and Esau

Wednesday I mentioned that Jacob and Esau were brothers, and that Esau sold his birthright to Jacob (for practically nothing), and I pointed out that some people think that Jacob took advantage of Esau, but that I believed that it was of God. I also said that was another subject, for another blog. This would be that blog.
If you go back to the very beginning, before Jacob and Esau were even born (they were twins, by the way), in Genesis 25:23, God told Rebekah that there were two nations in her womb, but that one would be stronger than the other, and the elder would serve the younger. I think that shows that God already had plans for Jacob, before he was even born. When Jacob and Esau were born, Esau came out first, but Jacob was holding onto his heel (Genesis 25:26). The name, Jacob, actually means, heel-holder, which I understand was a common expression for a trickster. Of course, Jacob wasn’t named that because he was a trickster, but because of the manner in which he was born.
Not very much farther into it, in verse 31, we find where Jacob asked Esau to sell his birthright. Esau, of course, does, but all of this was done without their father’s knowledge. So, when it came time to collect the birthright (or, at least, that’s what Isaac thought), Rebekah helped Jacob disguise himself as his brother (Genesis 27:5), so that he could collect the birthright that Esau had sold to him. Verse 12 indicates that, at the very least, Jacob was reluctant to go through with this, but Rebekah insisted, and it all worked out. How often, in Scripture, do people get rewarded for trickery?
It’s interesting, too, that Esau wanted Jacob dead, when he realized what he had lost. Jacob went, and sojourned with Laban, and married Laban’s daughters, and stayed away for twenty years. During that time, Laban tried to take advantage of Jacob, but in the end, God prevailed for Jacob, and Jacob left Laban as a man of considerable substance. When he came back home, Esau was actually glad to see him (Genesis 33:1-4).
It’s been said that familiarity breeds contempt. I think most of us (if not all of us) who grew up with siblings know that at least some of the time when we were growing up, we either wished to have been an only child, or wished death upon our siblings. It certainly seems, at best, cold-hearted for Jacob to charge his brother for a little bit of food when Esau was faint with hunger. Somehow, though, after growing up, moving apart, spending time away from each other, we find that we miss them. This is especially true, I think, for those of us who have lost a sibling. It seems fairly evident that, when Esau thought Jacob was gone forever, that he began to miss him, and long for him. I suspect that twenty years is a long time for God to help one get over one’s grudges (although it’s also more enough time to become very bitter if one nurses those grudges). After twenty years, he not only didn’t want him dead, he was very happy to see him, alive and well, and prosperous. Esau apparently had learned to look back at the incident as just a moment of childish foolishness. One of the things that struck me about this was that soon after that, Isaac died. Think about that for a minute: Isaac went to bless Esau, to give him his birthright, because Isaac thought he was at death’s door, but Isaac ended up living at least another twenty years.
Much, much later, God spoke to Malachi, and told Malachi that He loved Jacob, and hated Esau (Malachi 3:1-3). God clearly didn’t love Esau the way that He loved Jacob. Does God love tricksters? I realize that tricksters are not explicitly mentioned in Revelation 21:8, but I’m pretty sure that they would fall into that category somewhere. God must have led Jacob to do what he did, or God would have taken care of it.

On Human Rights

232 years ago, or, perhaps I should say, 11 score and twelve years ago, our forefathers wrote a Declaration of Independence, intended to separate us (the Americans) from the British government. That separation required considerably more than just a piece of paper, but we gained our independence. I would imagine that the British didn’t put up as much of a fight as most Americans presume, believing that we would find being on our own more difficult than anticipated and end up petitioning for reconciliation.
The words of that document are, to say the least, interesting, even to people outside the United States of America. One sentence in particular: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Declaration was printed in “The Gentlemen’s Magazine” in London, in the August 1776 issue. The September Issue of that magazine took issue with those words quoted above, on the grounds that government, in and of itself, was an abridgement of liberty, and that even if the Americans intended to disestablish government, they should no signs of abolishing slavery. Certainly the slaves had as much right to liberty as the ‘freemen’ of America. The Gentlemen’s Magazine was at least half right. Government can abridge liberty, or it can protect it. Unfortunately, what one man sees as an abridgment of his liberty, another man may very rightly see as the protection of his own. In retrospect, there can be no doubt that if our founding fathers had truly believed that all men were created equal, they should have abolished slavery. Unfortunately, many of our founding fathers did not truly believe that. Some represented regions of the country where slavery was an integral part of the economy, and abolition would have led to financial ruin for many. It was widely believed that, as a young nation, we needed to be strong, and we needed very much to be united. Benjamin Franklin once said that we must hang together, or we will surely hang separately. Unfortunately, those who believed strongly that slavery should be abolished, also believed that they needed those who insisted that slavery was necessary.
When the Constitution was written, there was a compromise made, to appease both the abolitionists and the slave-owners. This has become known as the three-fifths compromise, and some people say that the Constitution says that blacks only count as three-fifths of a person. This is erroneous. The Constitution actually does make any distinctions as far as race or color. The situation at hand was that the slave-owners wanted their representation in Congress (specifically the House of Representatives) to be determined by their state’s total population (including slaves). The abolitionists, of course, objected, since the slaves would have no say in who their elected officials would be, therefore, clearly those elected officials would not be representative of the slaves; additionally, some of the slave states had more slaves than some of the other states had freemen, thereby skewing the power in Congress towards the slave states (not that there were really slave states or free states at that time, but some states had heavy populations of slaves, while others had very few, if any). The abolitionists then countered that slave owners should have to pay more taxes, based on the number of people living on their property. The three-fifths compromise actually very judiciously avoids the use of the term ‘slave,’ but says that “other persons” (other than free men, women that paid taxes, and Indians that did not pay taxes) would be calculated at a rate of three-fifths for determining a given state’s representation in the House of Representatives. To suggest that the three-fifths compromise refers specifically to African-Americans would be to suggest that our founding fathers were unaware that there were free men of color in 1776. I think that they knew that.
In any case, we have come a long way since then, and we still have a ways to go. We have abolished slavery, but many of our citizens are still finding their human rights abridged. It would be easy to point fingers at other countries, and there are some governments that have very little respect for human rights, but we need to clean our own house first, before we tell other nations how to govern themselves (not that we don’t already, but that’s another story). If we set the example, other countries will follow. If we try to bully other countries when our own record on human rights is less than ideal, we only look like a hypocritical thug.

What Does It Mean to Be Reprobate?

What does it mean to be reprobate? American Heritage Dictionary gives two definitions (as an adjective): 1. Morally unprincipled; shameless. 2. Rejected by God and without hope of salvation. To be honest, there isn’t a lot of difference between the two. If one is morally unprincipled and shameless, than one stands a very good chance of being rejected by God and left with no hope of salvation. If one is rejected by God, then one has no basis for moral principles, and so will become morally unprincipled and shameless. Please notice that there is a definite difference between being reprobate and being an atheist. If you’ve been paying attention, then you know that many atheists do have moral principles, which simply proves that, although they have rejected God, God has not rejected them (at least not yet). The term reprobate is used three times in the New Testament: Romans 1:28, 2 Timothy 3:8, and Titus 1:16.
Some examples from Scripture: the parable of the prodigal son has been brought up, but I don’t think that qualifies. The father never gave up hope that his son would return, and when the son did return, the father ran out to meet him. Clearly, the parable illustrates the relationship that God (the Father) has with us (His children). Many times we will slip away from the will of God, but He is patient with us. He will usually deal with us, and try to get us to return (in the parable, the father had nothing to do with the son’s misfortune, but sometimes God does prevent us from prospering when we seek our own will instead of His; but sometimes He just let’s us do what we want, and let us learn the hard way that material things never bring lasting satisfaction). Personally, I don’t think that the prodigal son represents a reprobate spirit—the Father did not reject him, even though he rejected the Father.
Esau is, perhaps, a better example. He sold his birthright for a bowl of stew. At the time, he had convinced himself that he was starving to death, so what good was his birthright? Some have said that Jacob took advantage of him (because Jacob knew that Esau wasn’t dying), but I think that Jacob did what God led him to do, but that’s a subject for another blog (this would get really long if I tried to get into that now). My main point here is that Esau found no space of repentance, though he sought it carefully. Of course, in Esau’s case, he wasn’t looking for salvation (he was looking for his inheritance, as the older son, but inheritance doesn’t always go to the older son—but our inheritance, as Christians, from our Father, is salvation), it’s just that when he realized what he had given up for a little bit of food, he tried to get his birthright back, even though he didn’t have anything that Jacob wanted nearly as bad as Esau had wanted those beans at the time. It is clear, however, that even though Esau’s state wasn’t really the state of a reprobate man, that the Scripture uses Esau’s situation as a warning to those who might become reprobate: God forgives (and He wants to forgive), but there are no guarantees that you will be able to find forgiveness if you just walk away. I have known far too many people that convinced themselves that they could do whatever they wanted, because God would forgive them, and ended up so far out there that they didn’t even want to be forgiven anymore.
The Pharaoh that refused to let the Israelites go (Ramesses II?) has been brought up. To be honest, I’m not sure that he qualifies, either, because, it seems to me, that you have to have been saved before you can be reprobate. Certainly Pharaoh had a reprobate attitude, and it even talks about God hardening his heart, which would suggest that God wasn’t trying to save Pharaoh, so that would indicate that God had rejected Pharaoh. There is some indication that Pharaoh knew who the true God was, but that he refused to bend his will to God’s, so maybe he really was reprobate. I guess it’s open to debate.

The Sign On Your Heart

There is a verse in Isaiah that prophesies that the day will come when seven women will try to marry themselves to one man; they don’t want anything from him—they can supply their own needs—they just want to be called by his name. In this day and age, when polygamy is pretty much a thing of the past, and a lot of modern women really don’t feel the need to get married, anyway. I have a hard time seeing, say, John Johnson being approached by seven different women, all wanting to be Mrs. John Johnson, and assuring him that he doesn’t have to provide for them, they just don’t want to be Miss Spears, Miss Aguilera, Miss Taquila, Miss Hilton, Miss Alba, Miss Biel, and Miss Fox anymore. They just want to be able to say that they found a husband. So what is this all about?
I have mentioned before that there a number of New Testament references that compare the relationship between Christ and the church to a bridegroom and his bride. Now we know that there is only one true church. I don’t mean that one specific denomination is right and everybody else is wrong; but that there are a lot of people out there that want to call themselves Christians, but not really want to have anything to do with Jesus. They aren’t going to partake of the daily bread that He provides, they won’t wear the garments that He provides, they don’t even intend to abide in His house; they just want to be called Christians. I have written before about the significance of the wedding garment in parable of the wedding feast, but suffice it to say that God cast out a man that came to judgment not wearing the robes of righteousness that God provides to true Christians. If the Bride of Christ is the church, then it follows that these other seven women that want to be called by the name of some man that, let’s face it, they married in a sham marriage, these women represent false churches. Keep in mind that a church is a body of believers, not a building or a denomination or even a religious organization. You may sit beside someone in church on Sunday morning that doesn’t believe what you believe, and so, even though you may worship together, the two of you aren’t really part of the same church. The tares grow right in the midst of the wheat, after all….
There’s an amusing series of videos on GodTube (a parody of the Apple commercials where one guy is a Mac and the other one is a PC) where one guy says he is a Christian and the other one is a Christ-follower. The thing is, though, it doesn’t matter what you call yourself, if you aren’t following Christ, then you aren’t a Christian.
One thing that bothers me about the religious world today: A lot of times when I ask someone what religion they are part of, they tell me what denomination they belong to. I understand that it may be important to convey specifically what you believe, but is your greater allegiance to your denomination, or to your Lord and Savior? In the long run, the sign over the door to your church is a lot less important than the sign on the door to your heart—which should say, “No Vacancy.”
I was going to provide a link to some song lyrics here, but I can’t find the lyrics I wanted anywhere on the web. That’s pretty unusual. Anyway, here are the lyrics:

“Brand New Sign”
I’ve got a brand new sign,
With bright red letters,
Hanging on the door of my heart.
Since the Lord moved in,
I have never felt better;
My life has changed,
I’ve made a new start.
So I’ll let the devil know
He isn’t wanted anymore,
When he comes calling on me.
Oh, how mad he’s gonna be
When he begins to read,
“Full up, no vacancy!”

A Christmas Story About Birds

I was reminded of an old story this past weekend, one that I have heard before: There was a man who was an agnostic, but his wife and daughter were Christian. One Christmas Eve, the wife and daughter were going to a candlelight service at the church, and the wife asked him, “Are you sure that you don’t want to come?” He smiled and said, “No, the idea that God would become a man to come down to save us from our sins just doesn’t make since to me, but you go ahead.” He kissed his wife and daughter goodbye, and they went on to church. Sometime after they left, he noticed some birds fluttering around in the snow in his yard. He became concerned, because these birds should have flown south for the winter, and were not prepared to survive the cold. He was a compassionate man, and realized that his barn was heated; if he could just the birds into the barn, then they would live. He bundled up and went outside, opened the barn doors, and started trying to shoo the birds into the barn. No matter what he did, though, every time he came close to the birds, they scattered. He tried coming from different angles, but it didn’t matter. His efforts were thwarted because the birds couldn’t understand that he was trying to help them, no matter how non-threatening he tried to be. Finally, in frustration, he cried out, “It’s no use! I would have to become a bird in order to save these birds!” Just then, he heard the church bells ring in the distance, and his earlier words rang in his ears: “The idea that God would become a man to come down and save us…” He fell to his knees in the snow, and cried out to God, “Now I understand!”
I think that a lot of times, things happen that we don’t understand. We ask the question, “Why would God do that?” or “Why did God allow that to happen?” We ask, because we don’t understand. Part of the problem is that our own understanding of the world around us is very limited. Meteorologists have an expression: “A butterfly flapping its wings in Kansas today can cause a tornado in Japan tomorrow,” which really just means that the planetary atmospheric system is too complex to be analyzed. There are many, many variables, from insects to sunspots, even if we knew exactly, every contributing factor to tomorrow’s weather, we still wouldn’t be able to calculate accurate predictions 100% of the time. And that’s just the weather. Can you imagine the complexities of a global socio-economic system? My decisions may very well impact what kind of day you have (and not just because you are reading what I am writing), just as other people’s choices impact my life. God understands all of that. Sometimes He will allow things to happen to us, just so that someone else will be able to see, “Oh, that’s how a Christian reacts to something like that.” Unfortunately, sometimes all they really see is just how human we really are (well, that’s not always unfortunate). We are human, none of us are perfect, but we know the One who is perfect. It’s important that we trust Him, allow Him to guide our steps, and let Him work out the good in things.

Happy Mother's Day!

Mother’s Day is Sunday (Saturday in Mexico), so it seems appropriate to blog about mothers today. I blogged about my parents earlier this week, so not so much about my mother, just mothers in general.
We can start with Eve, since she was the first mother, and, in fact, Genesis 3:20 indicates that Adam named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all living. In actuality, Eve simply means life. I would imagine that she was a good mother, most of her children turned out okay, and that’s not an easy task, even when you have an example set for you by your own mother. I understand that Abel was understandably concerned about the way that she raised Cain, though.
Sarah was the mother of all of Israel, even though she doubted when she first heard that she would be (Genesis 18:12). To some extent, it’s understandable; she was old. She ended up having Isaac when she was 91. That’s quite an accomplishment.
Hannah, the mother of Samuel, was a woman in emotional turmoil, because it was very important to her to have a child. Her husband, Elkanah, had another wife, who had children, so it wasn’t a question of continuing her husband’s lineage; it was a question of her feelings of self-worth wrapped up in her desire to be a mother (that could be a good or a bad thing. In this case it was good, but, under most circumstances, a woman’s worth is not based on haw many children she has. Those were different times, though). She prayed to God, and promised her son to the Lord if He would just allow her to have a son. He did, she did, and Samuel ended up being raised by the High Priest, and becoming a prophet. God also allowed Hannah to have more children, after she showed her faithfulness with Samuel.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, was blessed among women. I think that she is underrated, and overrated, at the same time. Some people don’t seem to appreciate that she was not chosen simply because she was the millionth customer. Granted, her lineage figured into it, but God would not have chosen her to bear the Christ child and then to raise him, if she were not a righteous woman. She had a special relationship with God because of her faithfulness, that’s why God was able to trust her with such an important role. On the other hand, some people seem to think that she is practically a goddess in her own right. I suspect that she would object strenuously to that idea if she heard it. I can sort of understand the urge to try to have her act as an intercessor: “Mary, your Son will listen to you, and His Dad will listen to Him, and I need…” She, of course, is considerably less intimidating than God Himself is. Still, remember the wedding at Cana? She went to Jesus because they ran out of wine. She knew He could do something about it. He did, but not before getting upset with her for trying to put His abilities on display. Granted, in that instance, her intercession was successful, but how many times do you think she can get away with that? Do you think that any of us living today are as close to her as the couple getting married at Cana? The Bible tells us to honor our parents. It always seemed to me that Jesus’ response to Mary was a little on the disrespectful side. What kind of example is He setting? It seems to me that, for Him to respond to her that way, it must have been very important to Him for us to know that we shouldn’t count on Mary’s intercession ever again. We certainly can intercede for each other, though, particularly since Jesus taught us that whenever two or three are gathered together in His name, that He would be in the midst of us. The Bible does tell us to fear God, but it also tells us that He loves us and would like to take care of us, if only we will let Him.

The Power of Prayer

Yesterday I wrote about the proper position of women in the church, at least, according to Saint Paul. It occurred to me last night that some people object to Paul’s writings (particularly with regard to women) on the grounds that “Paul had a problem.” Indeed, in 2 Corinthians 12, starting at verse 7, Paul tells us that he had a thorn in the flesh, and that he had prayed that God would remove the thorn. He goes on to tell us that the answer that he got from God was that the “thorn” was good for Paul, it helped him stay humble. It never tells us what the situation was that Paul prayed about: Some say that it was that Paul hated women; others that Paul wanted desperately to be married, but knew that he couldn’t do what God had called him to do as a married man. I don’t know what it was, I think if it were important, then Paul would have written it down—God would have compelled him to write it down. I also think that if his thorn in the flesh interfered with Paul writing down what God wanted written down, then God would have removed it, and found some other way to reinforce Paul’s humility. Keep in mind that, of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament, Paul wrote Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First and Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. Yes, I know that some say Paul probably didn’t write Hebrews, but, in any case, the man wrote either thirteen or fourteen out of twenty-seven books in the New Testament. If we are going to discount his writings, without actually knowing what his problem was, shouldn’t we remove all of his writings from the Bible? Let’s face it, people who attack Paul’s character really just want to cherrypick the Scriptures they want to believe. The Bible is not a cafeteria: either you believe it, or you don’t. Either you believe that God directed the writing and the compiling of it, or you don’t. God could certainly have weeded out anything that slipped into the original edition that shouldn’t have been there.
Paul praying about his problem reminds me of Daniel praying to God, knowing that there was a Babylonian law that any person who petitioned anyone other than Darius King should be put to death. Daniel surely didn’t know what the outcome of that would be, but he did what he believed he needed to do, even if the law said he shouldn’t. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t recommend disobeying the law of the land, but, when the law tries to come between you and God, then you are justified in disobeying the law (don’t misunderstand me, I know that there are some people that do bad things and use religious belief to justify that, such as bombing abortion clinics, that’s just plain wrong). I think that it’s important to note that Daniel, after he became aware of the new law, prayed three times a day, as he did before. In other words, he didn’t start praying three times a day because of the law; he continued his normal relationship with God in spite of the law.
Some people have objected to the account of Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsemane. If He was God manifest in the flesh, then whom was He praying to? Himself? Keep in mind that in everything that He did in the flesh, Jesus set an example or the rest of us fleshly men to follow. If He hadn’t prayed in the garden, then some people would use that as an excuse not to pray: “Well, I never read in the Bible where Jesus prayed, so I don’t have to pray.” That’s kind of a silly excuse, but there are a lot of silly people. Also, the Scriptures tell us that all flesh needs to come to God. Some men refuse, I understand that, but all men should. So Jesus, in the flesh, prayed to God in the Spirit. In the process, He taught us the importance of putting God’s will first. Keep in mind that, God manifest in the flesh would have to deal with the flesh, and His flesh didn’t want to die, even though His Spirit understood, and was willing, to make that sacrifice for you and me.

A Woman's place in the Church

Yesterday I wrote about the model of marriage. It occurred to me as I wrote it, that that subject is closely related to the position of women in the church.
The Bible has been attacked as being anti-women. There are certainly some elements in it that cast women in a bad light, but, if you really read it, the men are never depicted as being perfect, either. I have mentioned before that David is identified as a man after God’s own heart, and yet, he had a man killed in order to take that man’s wife. I think that there are very few women in the Bible that did anything comparable (Jezebel, of course, but she wasn’t even Jewish).
I made reference to the Scripture yesterday that says that a woman should keep silent in the church. I was in a service one time where the pastor announced that he was going to preach on that verse the next Sunday, and immediately asked one of the women in the church to come up and share a testimony about what God had done in her life, and then asked another woman to sing, and then asked another woman to lead in prayer.
That same verse says that a woman should not usurp authority over a man. I mentioned yesterday that can put a woman in an awkward position, because if her husband starts doing things that he shouldn’t, she should try to influence him to straighten out, but she shouldn’t take authority over him. She could go to their pastor about it, though.
It has become common practice in a lot of churches to ordain women as pastors. A lot of churches have found that this increases attendance, even when the pastor isn’t young and attractive. Of course, this calls into question why are more people coming to church with a woman pastor, rather than a man. When the Word is being preached without fear, then it shouldn’t make any difference to the hearers who is doing the preaching. Of course, there are a lot of people who come to church every Sunday morning who don’t let that affect how they live their lives the rest of the week. A lot of them don’t really care whether their pastor is a man or a woman, but I do think that’s it’s easier to ignore a woman pastor than a man. If people aren’t coming to church for the right reason, then is it really doing them any good to come to church?
It has been suggested that if a woman cannot be a pastor, then that somehow implies that women are ‘less saved’ than men. In the Old Testament, only descendents of Levi could become priests. Does that mean that the rest of Israel was ‘less saved’ than the Levites? I don’t think so. I can certainly understand how some Benjamites might have felt that they were less saved, if they had a desire to be a priest, and were not allowed to, but they were just as much a part of Israel as the Levites. Apostle Paul talks at length about the different callings in the church, about how, we together, form the body of Christ. He makes the allusion that if the foot thinks that because it’s not the hand, then it is somehow less important to the body. Of course, those of us who are not ‘feet’ can look at the foot’s situation a little more objectively, and see how important it really is. By the same token, there are women that feel that they should be teachers and leaders (and some of them really should be), and think that they have to be a pastor to do that. We need Godly women in the church to teach the children and even younger women. These women are no less important to the ministry than the pastor is, even though they must be subject to a pastor. Does that make sense?
I realize that this is a controversial topic, and a lot of people will disagree with me on much of this. I welcome your comments; I don’t get many comments anyway, and I’d rather get somebody to disagree with me, so I at least know that somebody is paying attention… So comment, already, before I say something you’re really not going to like!

By the way, the picture above is a woman named Louise Weld, who pastors a church attended by a flickr.com contributer known as BillRead. Bill probably wouldn't approve of my using this picture this way, but it was the best picture I could find under creative commons license to go with this post.

The Wedding Model

Maybe it’s just because of the way that I was raised, but I tend to look at my parents’ relationship as the model for marriage. Don’t misunderstand me, I know that my parents don’t have the perfect marriage, but neither does anyone else. There were some things my parents were very, very good at. I don’t remember them arguing very often when I was a kid. Usually their arguments were not serious, there were a few times when they went and locked themselves in their bedroom so as not to argue in front of the kids. We could hear angry voices, sometimes (they tried to argue quietly when they did that), but we couldn’t understand the words. I can count on the fingers of one hand (without using my thumb) the number of times that happened.
One thing that’s interesting about my parents’ marriage: They grew up in different churches together. They have both attended my father’s church for many years now, but my mother has never formally joined the church. She’s been going there long enough that I don’t think too many people remember that she isn’t, technically, a ‘member.’ From what I understand of the church that my mother grew up in, and did formally join, none of the doctrinal differences have anything to do with salvation. The differences are the sort of thing that I imagine Jesus would refer to as ‘straining at a gnat.’ There will always be people that want to make a big deal over something that really doesn’t matter. (Do you believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation? I’ve always been more of a transmogrification man, myself. What difference does it make? Do you really think that, at judgment, God is going to say, no, you can’t come in, because you have a basic misunderstanding of communion—even though you did everything else right?). It occurs to me now that maybe I shouldn’t bring up my mother’s religious affiliation, because someone may read this that wasn’t aware and then start giving her a hard time. I would hope that my readers have better sense than that, though.
I think that a lot of people that knew my parents when I was growing up thought that my father was henpecked. To be honest, most of the time, if my mother asked my father to do something, he did it. Usually, there wasn’t even any discussion about it. That certainly supports the theory that he was henpecked. Of course, most of the time, what she asked of him was normal day-to-day stuff. A lot of it he probably would have done on his own if she hadn’t asked. Some of it he wouldn’t have thought to do on his own, but didn’t have any objection to. I was around enough to know that, occasionally, she would ask him to do something that he really felt strongly was not something that he should do. Most of the time, when that happened, he could tell her ‘no’ in a tone of voice that made it clear that the matter was not open for discussion, and she would drop the subject (although, occasionally, they would go lock themselves in the bedroom…).
The Bible says that the man is the head of the household. I think that many men have taken that to mean that the family is an autocracy. What the husband/father says, goes. Period. I don’t think that is what God intended. If two Godly people have joined together in matrimony, they are one flesh. They are partners. If they are truly God-fearing people, that diligently pray for guidance, then they are going to agree most of the time. When they disagree, then one of them is wrong (possibly both of them, but that should be very rare). When one of them is wrong, hopefully the other one can be persuasive enough to get them back on track. News flash! Sometimes the man will be the one that is wrong. That puts the woman in a very difficult position. The Bible says that a woman should not usurp authority over the man. The wife can only do so much to persuade her husband, if he’s messing up, before it becomes usurpation. If he’s stubborn about it (and convinced that he is right) she may have to simply go along with him, even though she knows he’s wrong. The husband will answer to God for his sin, but the wife has to answer for her obedience to her husband as well. In some cases, she may simply have to walk away from the marriage. That should be an extreme last resort, but if she feels that her husband’s leadership is threatening her salvation, then she needs to pack up and go.

Dr pepper and Patience

There have been a lot of ideas and theories that have gone around about Dr Pepper: One person told me once that it is carbonated prune juice. Some claim that it is the original American soda. Another person told me that it was a “graveyard soda” (a concoction of different sodas mixed together) and that it contained Coca-Cola.
In actuality, Dr Pepper contains no prune juice, although, if you try hard enough, you may be able to detect some resemblance between the two tastes. It is not the original American soda, although it has been around longer than Coca-Cola, so, no, it does not contain Coca-Cola. Dr Pepper was formulated by a pharmacist named Charles Alderton, but it was named by his boss, Wade Morrison. Wade Morrison had previously lived in Virginia, near a Doctor Charles T. Pepper. The story goes that Morrison was romantically interested in Dr. Pepper’s daughter, but that the good doctor refused to consent to any relationship between the two, seeing Morrison as a glorified “soda jerk” and not as a serious businessman. Even after Morrison tried to win favor with his intended’s father by naming a soda after him, it only reinforced Charles Pepper’s belief as to what this suitor was. If that’s really what happened, perhaps Morrison’s timing was off. Dr Pepper (the soda) ultimately made him a very wealthy man. Perhaps if he had waited until he was successful before pursuing the lovely Miss Pepper, it would have been possible to convince her father that Wade was, indeed, a serious businessman, capable of taking good care of a family.
Sometimes, we, as human beings, get in such a hurry to have what we want when we want it. Granted, we live in a microwave society (What? I have to wait SIX MINUTES before I can eat this?), but even before that, we were always anxious to get whatever it was, right now. Remember that old prayer, “Lord give me patience. Right now!” God doesn’t work on our timetable though. He expects us to work on His timetable. You wouldn’t go to your boss at work and try to tell him what hours you were going to work, would you (well, some people are on flexible hours, but, even then, there’s a limit)?
Habakkuk 2:3 says, “For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.” Some have pointed to this verse as a clear contradiction, even within the same verse it says that the vision will tarry, and then it says it won’t tarry. Of course, it also talks about an appointed time, without giving any indication as to when that appointed time is. Waiting for something to happen, when you don’t know when it supposed to happen, can seem like an eternity. It can seem like it is never going to happen. We could easily conclude that the event is tarrying, but it isn’t, it will come when it is time. That is all that verse is saying. Isaiah 40:31 says, “But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.” In First Samuel 13, Saul got into trouble because he didn’t wait on God—from the look of it, if had waited just a few minutes longer, maybe an hour… In the 25th Psalm, David talks about the importance of waiting on God.
In Luke 21:19, Jesus cautions us that, “In your patience possess ye your souls.” I think it is fairly self-explanatory that it is better to be like David than like Saul. In Romans 5:3, Paul gives us some instruction on how to gain patience, he says it comes through tribulation. Of course, most of us don’t like to go through tribulation, but a little bit of tribulation can lead to a great deal of patience. A lot of tribulation can be even more beneficial. If you find yourself being impatient, then pray for patience, but don’t be surprised if you start finding yourself going through tribulation. Just be patient, God won’t bring you to it, unless He’s ready to bring you through it.

Relationships

There’s an old story about a woman named Sally Vinson, who was faithful woman of God. She was the organist at her church. She also happened to be a very pretty woman, but it was well known in the community that she didn’t date outside her church, which really meant that she didn’t date much at all, because single men at her church were few and far between. On enterprising young man realized that there was a way to take advantage of the situation, all he had to do was to join her church (of course, there were many others that had tried that, and been found out, but he was smarter than they were—at least in his own mind). So he began attending services at Sally’s church, but she didn’t seem to notice. Of course, he was sitting way back in the back, and she was at the organ, so it was hard for her to realize that he was even there. He was absolutely certain that if he could just get her attention, he was home free, but how? Then one Sunday morning, the preacher held an altar call. That’s it! She’s looking at each face as they come up for the altar call; they are standing close to the organ; the situation is perfect! So he went up. The preacher, recognizing that this is a newcomer to church, asked him, “Are you seeking salvation?” Startled by the question, our intrepid hero stammered, “N-n-no s-s-sir, I-I’m seeking Sal Vinson!”
One thing that I have become aware of, there are an awful lot of churches today that have a lot of women, and not many men. In many of these churches, the men are there only because of their wives and/or girlfriends. That seems really sad to me. If the only way I can maintain a relationship with a woman is to attend her church, and the only reason I’m attending her church is so that I can maintain a relationship with her, then I’m not really the man that she wants to maintain a relationship with, anyway, am I? I guess it’s better to attend church for the wrong reason than to not attend church at all, but not much better. At least if you’re in church, you may hear something during your waking moments that may actually make a difference in your life. Something may stir you up to read your Bible, and begin learning about your spouse’s faith…
I have posted before about how long-term relationships are based on commonality. There’s something to be said for the adage that opposite’s attract, but the novelty of that wears off after awhile. If you want to be happy on your fiftieth wedding anniversary, you should marry someone that you have a lot in common with. I think most of us have heard Dr. Neil Clark Warren’s talk about how his method is to match up people with fifty points in common. These are what he believes to be the most important aspects of personality. Even comedian Chris Rock has said that you should be with someone that is like you (“If you’re a crackhead, she should be a crackhead!”). Realistically, your spouse should be your friend, too; someone that you can discuss almost anything with for long periods of time without it turning into an argument.
If you are a Christian (or a Jew or a Muslim, for that matter), then your relationship with God should be the most important thing to you. Your significant other should have the same type of relationship with God that you do. It doesn’t necessarily follow that you both have to go to the same church, but if you are members of different churches together, the two churches should teach the same thing, and somewhere down the road, that should be consolidated. Eventually, you are going to want to attend church together, just make sure that both of you are there for the right reason. Of course, if you are attending church for the wrong reason, then your spouse should also be attending church for the wrong reason, but I’m not quite sure how that would work out.

Who Loves You?

This past weekend I watched the movie "Alvin and the Chipmunks." I didn't really expect to like it, but I really liked the cartoon as a kid, and then I saw that Jason Lee was in it. It was much better than I expected.
For those of you that haven't seen it, let me just say that Jason Lee plays David Seville, who is a struggling songwriter. David has a friend in the industry, someone he knows from college, but even his friend won't buy his music. The friend, Ian Hawke, tells him that he doesn't know anyone who would sing his songs. Dave almost gives up, but then he meets these singing chipmunks. They will sing his songs, and even if the songs aren't that good (and they really aren't that bad), the fact that these songs are being sung by chipmunks will hook a lot of people. Very quickly, we grow to understand that the chipmunks aren't just a meal ticket to Dave, though; he actually cares about them, and tries his best to take care of them. Ian, on the other hand, is used to dealing with rock stars who get whatever they want whenever they want it, as long as they can continue to draw a crowd. Ian is more than willing to let the 'munks run wild. Alvin, Simon and Theodore, face a decision, whether to stay with Dave, who looks out for them, or with Ian, who lets them play with expensive toys all day long. Oh, and Ian has no heartache with telling them that Dave doesn't care about them at all.
It reminded me of an interview that I saw on the news some years ago: This TV news crew had tracked down some self-professed Satanists, and was interviewing them. These guys came up with the philosophy that God is evil. Their reasoning was that God tries to keep people from doing what they want, but the devil lets people do what they want, so it's better to worship Satan.
I have posted about this before, but, God loves us, and wants to take care of us. Remember John 3:16? “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Sometimes submitting to God’s will means not getting to do what we want, but it always works out for the best for all concerned (Romans 8:28). Jesus told us that God would have liked to have gathered the people of Jerusalem under His wings and protected them, the way a mother hen protects her chicks, but Israel was too stubborn and self-willed to allow God to protect them (Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:34). The Bible says that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), but it also says that God forgives (Ephesians 1:7). In John 15, Jesus compares us to a tree, and he talks about branches that don’t fruit are cut off, and branches that do bear fruit are purged, that they may bring forth more fruit. I have to admit, that verse confused me at first, because I thought that to purge meant to erase, or get rid of, so if the choices are being cut off, or being purged, I’m not sure what the difference would be. As a botanical term, however, to purge means to prune trees and vines from useless shoots. In other words, just as any branch that’s not bearing fruit is cut off, any shoot from a good branch that isn’t helping also gets cut off. That’s not a pleasant experience, but in the long run, it makes the whole tree more productive: It’s not supporting dead weight. God wants the best for us, but that doesn’t mean that every day is a picnic.